Niches of Persistence
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/06/18
According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, Rick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher Harding, Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.
Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.
Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I proposed a topic on how evolution finds all niches of persistence. Those are generic abstract terms. I wanted to start with reproduction styles, and I’m speaking more about biological reproduction. So, our species has its form of reproduction, and I’m speaking purely in terms of a continuation of a genetic line. I’m not talking about social aspects; I’m just talking about the forms and mechanics of reproduction. If you look at the animal world and the plant world, there are just an enormous number of ways in which nature has found a way to reproduce. So, at face value, these reproduction styles are so diverse in terms of styles and magnitudes that nature has seen most of the possible niches for persistence for reproductive success.
Rick Rosner: Hold on. So, persistence isn’t the same thing as reproductive success. You have to start with a tautology: evolution is good at what evolution is good at. On this planet, at least, evolutionary processes have created a genetic structure that is good at passing down well-assembly instructions to make roughly the same animal from generation to generation, with variation created for a lot of animals and plants mixing genes by combining a male and a female set of genes. Still, there’s a lot that gets left out. I don’t know of any species that lets you mix three people’s genes to create an offspring or four. You can do four if you do a two by two and then have those two offsprings mate, but only four at a time.
Evolution could improve at creating persistence by having creatures live forever. Some species live for a long time, and you can call them immortal because either the same animal keeps living by making new cells or something or keeps producing more or less exact duplicates of itself. If you probably take a couple of hours and think of a bunch of different ways too, if you somehow have the technology to do it, pass information from generation to generation with variation, but when it comes to sexual reproduction and all the other ways that organisms on earth reproduce, they’re pretty good at filling niches because they’ve had billions of years to develop the technology; the evolutionary technology genes and epigenetics and just everything. So, once you limit the persistence field to reproductive genetics, evolution has covered a lot of ground because it’s had so long to do it and so many animals to do it with.
A hundred years ago, Schrödinger of Schrödinger’s Cat wrote a book called What Is Life. I tried to read it, I started reading it, and I didn’t get very far, but I mean, there’s plenty of stuff that’s persistent, exists for a long time, and isn’t alive. If the universe allows, diamonds can exist for billions of years. It takes around four and a half billion years for a diamond to disintegrate.
Jacobsen: That’s incredible!
Rosner: Yeah, it’s under a lot of pressure, and little carbon molecules very slowly evaporate off the surface of a diamond. There are other crystals that are probably even more stable and can persist for tens of billions of years if external conditions allow.
Jacobsen: So, you’re distinguishing between the persistence of inanimate life and animate life?
Rosner: Schrödinger wrote that book about 25 years before Shannon developed a mathematical characterization of information and information theory. I would think that a modern physicist, a super competent physicist writing about what life is, would get farther in defining it than the uncertainty guy did because its information and entropy, and neg entropy, have something to do with how life is organized over time and being persistent within the lives of individual organisms and also from generation to generation. You don’t have to get that deep; you can look at some of the things… and we did this in like fourth or fifth grade, like, what do you think makes something alive? In fourth grade, we didn’t come up with all this stuff, but it’s being built from the minor structures, which are self-assembled and reproduced. You can make a robot that can create a replica of itself, but the pieces will not be significant. They’re not going to take advantage of all the things that individual atoms can; you’re not going to have microstructures or everything being built up from microstructures.
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.
In-Sight Publishing 